Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prominent proponents/opponents of LASIK


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower háblame 19:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Prominent proponents/opponents of LASIK
Delete. Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not... [l]ists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons." (emphasis mine) Does Wikipedia need another list?Edwardian 22:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (Comment updated 20:10, 26 October 2005)
 * Definitely not. Merge with LASIK and delete. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sure the content is worth merging; it appears that the article exists only to promote the POV of the list's sole member. MCB 02:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * However, that sole member is notable enough to have a WP article.&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with LASIK] and delete. I can't help but point out that this content was written by me, and that I had originally put it in the LASIK article. Another user took issue with this and we got into an edit war, and then he inappropriately moved the content to its own entry. I then made NUMEROUS attempts to get community input on the issue and it went completely ignored. The content is relevant and Kathy Griffin has been a VERY VOCAL opponent of the surgery; she is not simply expressing a POV, but she gives a detailed, FACTUAL account of her own experiences with the surgery including the fact that it left her partially blind. She has spoken out about it on numerous television shows, most notably Oprah. The section should be merged back into the LASIK article and should be left there for expansion of other notable and informed individuals including but not limited to scientists, doctors, or other noteworthy individuals (celebrity or otherwise) with informative, factual stances on the surgery in question. Pacian 07:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the LASIK article should present “informative, factual stances on the surgery”, and thus far it does. Anyone reviewing that article will see that the attention given to the potential drawbacks of LASIK in the discussion of complications, factors affecting surgery, and concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of the procedure far outweighs any discussion of the procedure’s benefits. The blurb regarding Griffin, however, is NOT directly relevant to building a neutral and informative article on LASIK. It is indeed a fact that Griffin reports having a poor outcome and that she believes LASIK is an inherently bad procedure, but there are no specific facts about LASIK in Prominent proponents/opponents of LASIK or on her website.
 * Neutral point of view states: “Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly.” It does not state that we need to build a compendium of everyone’s POV nor does it state that we need to do so with every "prominent" person’s POV. If we must present Griffin's POV, then put it in her article.Edwardian 04:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There should not be a list, and the page should be deleted. If Kathy Griffin has made it to Oprah there may be a case for merging that back into the LASIK article. This does not seem to be a common occurrence, which is why I would recommend that every doctor who treats a celebrity should have the consent meeting witnessed by a lawyer and a confidentiality agreement signed by the patient at the same time :-). JFW | T@lk  20:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely irrelevant list --WS 23:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete comedy "list". Rd232 talk 18:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.